For the Heart and Soul of the Movement
By Richard Edmondson
Are the ‘Occupy America’ protesters perhaps beginning to look just a little bit like the 3 monkeys? Monday I reported on attempts to silence blogger John Friend at an Occupy San Diego protest a few days ago. Friend got up and began to speak about the corrupt banking system, and everything was going along just peachy—peachy, that is, until midway through his talk when he shifted the topic to Israel and 9/11.
“All of the wars that we’re fighting are a result of 9/11,” he said. “9/11 has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be an inside job. It was carried out by criminals in the United States government and the state of Israel.”
Suddenly Friend found himself being booed and heckled. Some in the crowd got up to physically harass him and one even succeeded in using a stick to knock his sign over. In the video of the episode ( view here ) we also observe what appears to be one of the protest organizers holding up his hands in an overhead X, signifying disapproval of what the speaker is saying. Oddly enough, the man doing this is facing not Friend, but the audience, as if the gesture was intended as a signal for someone, or possibly group of someones, among the crowd.
But it isn’t only in San Diego where this sort of thing is happening. Something very similar occurred several days ago on a Press TV program focusing on the American protests. Featured as guests were representatives of two of the country’s most prominent antiwar activist groups—Sarah Flounders of the International Action Center, and Debra Sweet of World Can’t Wait—along with former Senate Candidate Mark Dankoff. And somewhat like Friend did in San Diego, Dankof triggered an almost visceral reaction upon interjecting 9/11 and America’s “Zionist-driven foreign policy” into the conversation.
“I think it’s abundantly clear the news media in this country reflects corporate interests. It’s that simple. All you have to look at is the fact that ranging from Fox to CNN these protests are largely being spun the same way,” he said. “And it seems to me that when you look at how the media aided and abetted some of the false stories that were circulated about 9/11, and some of the false pretexts that were offered by the Bush administration for why we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s very clear that the news media is quite complicit in this whole situation that’s going on with international bankers and with the Zionist lobby, the very people who control American and domestic and foreign policy.”
To this both Sweet and Flounders responded by accusing Dankof of anti-Semitism.
“I don’t think the problem is international bankers, which is just a code word for being anti-Semitic, or (the) Zionist lobby. Certainly the U.S. supports Israel, but Mark and I are not in the same movement here. I just want to be very clear about that,” declared Sweet.
The antipathies grew even more pronounced after Dankof expressed the opinion that “there is an issue here that involves Jewish control of the news media, Jewish control of the American political process, disproportionate Jewish control of the international banking system through the Federal Reserve Board and an Israeli-driven American foreign policy.” Whereupon he went on to assert that “this is the core of the problem, and until we acknowledge that this is the core of the problem, we simply, those of us on both left and right, are going to be tap dancing around this whole situation.”
Sweet perhaps could have at least agreed with Dankof that there is indeed a problem with the power exerted in Washington by Jewish lobbies such as AIPAC, but this she did not do. Instead, she made the absolutely mind-boggling claim that “The U.S. is driving policy in Israel, not vice versa.”
Flounders, for her own part, responded with a denunciation of Dankof that was, if anything, even stronger than Sweet’s:
Is Dankof an anti-Semite? I don’t know and I really don’t care—largely because it’s irrelevant. What is relevant are the points he makes about Zionist control over our political process. That control is very real. If you doubt this, read my article Obama and His Nine Hundred Rabbis, or check out the new essay by James Petras, Obama at the General Assembly: Sacrificing Palestine for Zionist Campaign Funds, which makes a lot of the same points.
You can also go to Dankof’s website , and of course in so doing, you can satisfy yourself as to whether he is or isn’t an anti-Semite, should that still be a burning issue for you. One of the things you’ll find there is his response to the accusations leveled against him by Flounders and Sweet. I read through it myself and found it worth reading. Sure, he grouses a bit about “the militant homosexual agenda” and other such things conservatives have a tendency to fixate over, but he’s entitled to his views. For me, it’s neither here nor there. What’s important is that he discusses Zionist power and the harm it is doing to America, mentioning in the course of this discussion the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, the Pollard spy case, the AIPAC spy scandals, and a number of other issues—all the way up to and including Obama’s recent cave-in to Jewish pressure over the issue of Palestinian statehood.
Back in the late 1970s, as the campaign for sanctions against South Africa was getting into high gear, virtually every leftist group in America spoke out on this issue, and no one accused anyone else of being an “anti-Afrikanite.” Apartheid was recognized as a crime by the vast majority of humanity. The state of Israel has committed war crimes and maintained a despicable policy of apartheid against the Palestinians. This is an area where the left and right should be finding common ground, but for some reason the “leftists” manipulating the Occupy Wall Street movement refuse to enter the circle of humanity that has condemned Israel’s crimes and rejected its membership in the family of nations.
What Dankof has going for him is a willingness to examine these issues head-on and recognize them for the dangerous can of worms that they are—something Sweet, Founders, and the see-no-evil protesters in San Diego with their overhead X’s have so far studiously avoided. No genuine change can ever be achieved in this country until the power of the Israeli lobby has been dealt with and dismantled. If the protesters refuse to face this fact their efforts are doomed to failure. San Diego is of course a microcosm of the rest of the country. What John Friend is doing there in essence is waging a war for the heart and soul of the movement. But he can’t do it alone.
By Richard Edmondson
Are the ‘Occupy America’ protesters perhaps beginning to look just a little bit like the 3 monkeys? Monday I reported on attempts to silence blogger John Friend at an Occupy San Diego protest a few days ago. Friend got up and began to speak about the corrupt banking system, and everything was going along just peachy—peachy, that is, until midway through his talk when he shifted the topic to Israel and 9/11.
“All of the wars that we’re fighting are a result of 9/11,” he said. “9/11 has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be an inside job. It was carried out by criminals in the United States government and the state of Israel.”
Suddenly Friend found himself being booed and heckled. Some in the crowd got up to physically harass him and one even succeeded in using a stick to knock his sign over. In the video of the episode ( view here ) we also observe what appears to be one of the protest organizers holding up his hands in an overhead X, signifying disapproval of what the speaker is saying. Oddly enough, the man doing this is facing not Friend, but the audience, as if the gesture was intended as a signal for someone, or possibly group of someones, among the crowd.
But it isn’t only in San Diego where this sort of thing is happening. Something very similar occurred several days ago on a Press TV program focusing on the American protests. Featured as guests were representatives of two of the country’s most prominent antiwar activist groups—Sarah Flounders of the International Action Center, and Debra Sweet of World Can’t Wait—along with former Senate Candidate Mark Dankoff. And somewhat like Friend did in San Diego, Dankof triggered an almost visceral reaction upon interjecting 9/11 and America’s “Zionist-driven foreign policy” into the conversation.
“I think it’s abundantly clear the news media in this country reflects corporate interests. It’s that simple. All you have to look at is the fact that ranging from Fox to CNN these protests are largely being spun the same way,” he said. “And it seems to me that when you look at how the media aided and abetted some of the false stories that were circulated about 9/11, and some of the false pretexts that were offered by the Bush administration for why we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s very clear that the news media is quite complicit in this whole situation that’s going on with international bankers and with the Zionist lobby, the very people who control American and domestic and foreign policy.”
To this both Sweet and Flounders responded by accusing Dankof of anti-Semitism.
“I don’t think the problem is international bankers, which is just a code word for being anti-Semitic, or (the) Zionist lobby. Certainly the U.S. supports Israel, but Mark and I are not in the same movement here. I just want to be very clear about that,” declared Sweet.
The antipathies grew even more pronounced after Dankof expressed the opinion that “there is an issue here that involves Jewish control of the news media, Jewish control of the American political process, disproportionate Jewish control of the international banking system through the Federal Reserve Board and an Israeli-driven American foreign policy.” Whereupon he went on to assert that “this is the core of the problem, and until we acknowledge that this is the core of the problem, we simply, those of us on both left and right, are going to be tap dancing around this whole situation.”
Sweet perhaps could have at least agreed with Dankof that there is indeed a problem with the power exerted in Washington by Jewish lobbies such as AIPAC, but this she did not do. Instead, she made the absolutely mind-boggling claim that “The U.S. is driving policy in Israel, not vice versa.”
Flounders, for her own part, responded with a denunciation of Dankof that was, if anything, even stronger than Sweet’s:
“I think it’s important for us and this new movement to separate ourselves from voices like Mark Dankof, who are racist, anti-Semitic and divisive, because our strength will be in our unity and building solidarity with the struggles and peoples of the world and building solidarity among people here—that policy is set in Wall Street, not Tel Aviv. Tel Aviv is an adjunct to U.S. policy in the Middle East. Yes it is a war machine that oppresses the Palestinian people, but the policies come from Wall Street, from a tiny handful who have investments in many, many other countries and also carry out disastrous policies here at home.”
Is Dankof an anti-Semite? I don’t know and I really don’t care—largely because it’s irrelevant. What is relevant are the points he makes about Zionist control over our political process. That control is very real. If you doubt this, read my article Obama and His Nine Hundred Rabbis, or check out the new essay by James Petras, Obama at the General Assembly: Sacrificing Palestine for Zionist Campaign Funds, which makes a lot of the same points.
You can also go to Dankof’s website , and of course in so doing, you can satisfy yourself as to whether he is or isn’t an anti-Semite, should that still be a burning issue for you. One of the things you’ll find there is his response to the accusations leveled against him by Flounders and Sweet. I read through it myself and found it worth reading. Sure, he grouses a bit about “the militant homosexual agenda” and other such things conservatives have a tendency to fixate over, but he’s entitled to his views. For me, it’s neither here nor there. What’s important is that he discusses Zionist power and the harm it is doing to America, mentioning in the course of this discussion the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, the Pollard spy case, the AIPAC spy scandals, and a number of other issues—all the way up to and including Obama’s recent cave-in to Jewish pressure over the issue of Palestinian statehood.
Back in the late 1970s, as the campaign for sanctions against South Africa was getting into high gear, virtually every leftist group in America spoke out on this issue, and no one accused anyone else of being an “anti-Afrikanite.” Apartheid was recognized as a crime by the vast majority of humanity. The state of Israel has committed war crimes and maintained a despicable policy of apartheid against the Palestinians. This is an area where the left and right should be finding common ground, but for some reason the “leftists” manipulating the Occupy Wall Street movement refuse to enter the circle of humanity that has condemned Israel’s crimes and rejected its membership in the family of nations.
What Dankof has going for him is a willingness to examine these issues head-on and recognize them for the dangerous can of worms that they are—something Sweet, Founders, and the see-no-evil protesters in San Diego with their overhead X’s have so far studiously avoided. No genuine change can ever be achieved in this country until the power of the Israeli lobby has been dealt with and dismantled. If the protesters refuse to face this fact their efforts are doomed to failure. San Diego is of course a microcosm of the rest of the country. What John Friend is doing there in essence is waging a war for the heart and soul of the movement. But he can’t do it alone.
Uprooted Palestinian
No comments:
Post a Comment